Historic Beveling on SG's

[charlie brown]

The Custom shop is now doing a more correct

"Historic" beveling, on the SG's. And, of course

attaching a premium price, for their trouble.

Do you like the historic beveling, better? Is the

current "production" model beveling "just fine,"

or..."I don't care, one way or the other?"

 

Just curious, what the consensus might be.

 

I (personally) would like the "historic" beveling,

to be "Standard" on ALL SG's....but, that's just me.

 

CB

[deelaz]

is it different from the 61 ri bevelling?

[ibis]

is it different from the 61 ri bevelling?

 

Good question, I always presumed the 61 RI was accurate, but then we've seen this before! Accurate means 'accurate enough for the time being'. Its a bit like the remastering of CDs. You're never sure when you've bought the definitive version.

 

With Les Pauls, the most historically accurate I've ever seen have not even been made by Gibson. But that's another debate.

 

For now, it would be interesting to compare a 61RI with a VOS.

[charlie brown]

I recently saw, what must have been a "transition" model '65 SG Standard, with the larger

("Bat Wing") pickguard, but with the "Historic" beveling! Awesome looking, and it felt so

much more comfortable to play, too. So, it would be interesting to know exactly when Gibson

changed the beveling, and why? Just "cost-cutting" or aesthetic "redesign" reasons?

 

CB

[charlie brown]

Also, did they change the headstock size (to a smaller one), in 65 or later?

 

Thanks,

CB

[lous1952]

Batwing SGs started showing up in 1966.

 

The headstocks on my '68 and '69 SGs are actually 1/8" longer than the one on my '65.

 

The shapes are slightly different, but not much.

[charlie brown]

Batwing SGs started showing up in 1966.

 

The headstocks on my '68 and '69 SGs are actually 1/8" longer than the one on my '65.

 

The shapes are slightly different' date=' but not much.[/quote']

 

Thanks. I guess what I meant by smaller headstock was "less wide." My "Bad!"

 

 

CB

[daveinspain]

My 71 has the smaller, less wide, headstock. The nech gets pretty thin where it meets the headstock, its very easy to wrap all your fingers completely around the neck. Very easy to play... I never notice anything different in the beveling on the SG bodies. Can you post some picks of the different bevels? I'll tell you one thing I do like alot is the early Melody Makers that have the SG shape. Those are so sweet!! They even made a 12 string Melody Maker with the SG shape that I would love to have...

 

 

[hbomb76]

Here's the deal with the beveling on Historics (unless they've made DRAMATIC improvements in the past few months, that is):

 

There's nothing TRULY "accurate" cosmetically about the shaping, tapering or bevels on the horns of the Historics. Their bevels are closer (from a strictly dead-on in front view) than the '61 Reissue, which seems to be regressing back to the 80's "SG-62" style awkward looking bevels, however a major plus on the '61 RI is they actually taper the horn tips thinner like the originals (which, honestly, slap a Maestro on a '61 RI and paint it the RIGHT shade of red and I'm about 90% satisfied with it as a '64/65 Reissue); from 1999 till about 2003 though, the '61 RI seemed to have a more balanced front-view outline than its higher priced sisters. But here are some things they should do to REALLY make those ever-increasing "Historic" price tags a little more justified...

 

First off, the front-view outline is weird to me. On 99% of the '61 to '66 small pickguard SG models I've seen in pictures or in person, the bottom (treble-side) cutaway is a tad longer, giving an ever so slightly more symmetrical devil horn look. I've seen some that even look within a quarter of an inch difference from the top horn, and coupled with the more dramatic, aesthetic beveling they HAND SHAPED back then, it really was a pleasing image that was incredibly balanced. So add a little more length and more of a point on that bottom horn first.

 

Secondly, for the MOST part the beveling (from the front view again) is close to the originals. Where it could improve would be the ANGLE of beveling could be deepened slightly, and the depth of the top-horn bevel should remain deeper all the way to the tip. Simple, right? You'd think.

 

Lastly, the biggest thing that tells me from 30 feet away it's a reissue is the lack of tapering of the horn tips. As with the originals (and with the '61 RI since 1999), there is more shaved off of the guitar's horn tips than anything since the original ones out of Kalamazoo. If you're looking down (as in playing it) at an original, not only do you see a tad more tapering from the front, but a LOT more tapering from the back side, usually beginning about where the neck pickup is and angled in, bringing those tips (especially in the case of the top/bass side horn) to a much thinner profile. Factor in the above mentioned outline shape plus the bevel angle and VOILA! Instant sexiness. That is, assuming it's also finished in a QUALITY mirrorlike deep, dark cherry red color of course.

 

A little tweaking could make a decent new Custom/Historic SG into a masterpiece. But until enough of us whine about it, who knows if/when it'd ever happen.

 

I agree they really at least ought to give all SG models the '61 reissue's style of beveling and tapering. It would just make for a more authentic feeling and looking SG, and would certainly set it aside from the copies and clones, recapturing the essence of the original two horned rocker. :)

 

H-Bomb

[dickey]

I have had many standards & '61-'62 re-issues. My current '61 re-issue has very deep beveling, almost like the one from the custom shop, but looking down at the guitar from playing position, the "horns" taper to a very sharp point. The lower horn is longer than that on the custom shop re-issue, making for a more pleasing symmetrical shape. I've adjusted the truss rod so the neck is perfectly straight, and lowered the action to where the strings are almost "painted" on the neck, so it plays just like an original, but unfortunately doesn't quite have the sound of an original--a friend who is an SG freak said to replace the pickups with 'burstbuckers, as the ones that come with it are too hot. It sounds great in my Twin Reverb, but because I am a pedal steel player, I use my Peavey onstage mostly, and it's not the right amp for an SG. All in all, a nice Axe,no tuning or intonation issues, but the Heritage cherry should have been made a little brigfhter, more period correct. Mine has the color of the late '60s SG's;kinda dark

[MI_Canuck]

Any of you guys have pics of the truly historically accurate beveling and horn profile? I'm curious as to how that's actually supposed to look vs the modern historics and standard models...

 

cheers

[hbomb76]

Any of you guys have pics of the truly historically accurate beveling and horn profile? I'm curious as to how that's actually supposed to look vs the modern historics and standard models...

 

cheers

 

 

This is a very quickly thrown together comparison' date=' I have probably a thousand to choose from on my PC (given time I could make a much better case for the cause)...this should give you a little better idea though...check out the sexiness:

 

[img']http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c102/hbomb76/Guitars/horntipcomparisons.jpg[/img]

[hbomb76]

Any of you guys have pics of the truly historically accurate beveling and horn profile? I'm curious as to how that's actually supposed to look vs the modern historics and standard models...

 

cheers

 

I am waiting to go to dinner' date=' so I thought I'd dig up some more examples. Notice the Historic models' edgy/slabby appearance versus the vintage elegance and aesthetic.

 

Here are even more examples of Historics:

[img']http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c102/hbomb76/Guitars/historichorntips9-1-08.jpg[/img]

 

And vintage SG's (even have some LATE 60's models that put Historics to shame!):

[MI_Canuck]

wow - thanks for posting all those hbomb... i now what you describe... with extra bit of taper on those original 60's SG's, makes the horns a bit rounder though, at least that's what it seem... i think i almost prefer the new historics - a bit sharper horns, but still have a nice large bevel...

 

odd how there is such variation with the bevels and horn taper... and i've seen 70's SG's with practically no bevel on the inside part of the horns - that i don't dig too much... others might, who knows...

 

thnx again for clarifying...

 

cheers

[hbomb76]

wow - thanks for posting all those hbomb... i now what you describe... with extra bit of taper on those original 60's SG's' date=' makes the horns a bit rounder though, at least that's what it seem... i think i almost prefer the new historics - a bit sharper horns, but still have a nice large bevel...

 

odd how there is such variation with the bevels and horn taper... and i've seen 70's SG's with practically no bevel on the inside part of the horns - that i don't dig too much... others might, who knows...

 

thnx again for clarifying...

 

cheers

[/quote']

 

Overall I think the slight rounding of the edges on the originals offers something a little sleeker. Kind of like an 80's Corvette with it's boxiness and harsh edges versus the recent ones with more curves and aerodynamics. Of course, it's been my experience that there are some people who fawn over any Vette. Same goes for the 70's and 80's "Norlin" SGs (which are slabby and misshapen looking to me), and even our current models don't have the vibe. They're closer in many ways, but still too far off the mark for me to buy one. I actually like the USA '61 RI's outline (it's slightly more symmetrical, and more 'pointy' looking head-on), and I think if they'd just use THAT outline and horn-tip tapering with the standard Historic series deep beveling, it would be a splendid compromise that, when combined with a more quality deeper red non-faded finish, would make me certainly want to once again buy a new Gibson. It'd be an extremely simple fix (a no-brainer in fact), and what a marvelous outcome we'd get.

 

When I ding and scratch up my '61 RI w/Maestro bad enough, I plan on having my luthier "fix" it with the above mentioned beveling (which it's not that far off, as the beveling was better on them in '99 to '04 and has since slackened) and maybe even do her up in Pelham Blue or something, I dunno. But seriously, they could combine the best of the USA and Custom/Historic models and make one helluva sweet guitar.

 

H-Bomb

 

PS...just for giggles, I edited a photo of a recent Custom Shop one-off to show a ROUGH example of the ideal scenario:

[Ian Martin]

I would like to thank those who are contributing to this thread. It is very informative, and in a way, very bizarre.

 

Perhaps if anything, from a lack of owning more than one SG...but I never really noticed the difference in beveling. I can understand it in an era where each guitar was made by hand...but this goes beyond that. Very eye-opening!

 

Makes me feel a bit insecure about my 'lowly' Standard, but it is nonetheless an amazing guitar.

 

Thanks again!

[Shaker]

Some great information here. Here is a related question. I wonder how consistently smooth the "horns" were among the vintage 60's SGs. Did some guitars have relatively sharp "horns", like those found in the current production guitars and others had smooth "horns" like those shown in the photos? I can easily imagine a fair amount of variations, especially back in the 60s but I do not know the extent. Thanks.

[hbomb76]

Some great information here. Here is a related question. I wonder how consistently smooth the "horns" were among the vintage 60's SGs. Did some guitars have relatively sharp "horns"' date=' like those found in the current production guitars and others had smooth "horns" like those shown in the photos? I can easily imagine a fair amount of variations, especially back in the 60s but I do not know the extent. Thanks.

 

 

[/quote']

 

Actually, it is alarming when you see just how varied the originals could be (thanks to HANDS-ON artistry). There was always a certain degree of variation, but probably 90% or better shared the thinner horn tips, deeper beveling and smoother edging. However, I saw a '65 Standard one time that had the minimal cutaway beveling of a '68 to '71 model, and seriously just the other day I ran across one online that was a '61 or '62 and it actually had the less-meaty, "pointier" style horns like the '61 Reissue (just with better beveling), and that was the only one like that I'd ever seen. Just like (as I think I've already said in one post) one of my particular favorite online finds was a '65 Standard in great condition (that was also priced like a new Camry) which had a slightly longer lower horn and in conjunction with the deeper bevels that gave off such a beautiful near-symmetry...the only oddity was that the Maestro Vibrola was installed slightly off-center, which was a little funky, but the body was superb and would be the basis for my "dream" guitar. Also, oddly enough, I almost bought a '74 Standard back about 15 years ago (factory Bigsby, dead mint, wine red...AWESOME player) that possessed almost mid-60's style beveling, whereas the vast majority of 70's and 80's models have almost none (aside from say, the SG-62, which was even more loosely a "reissue" than today's models). There's always the odd bird or two when referring to the good 'ol days, but I've only seen 2 or 3 60's models that are actually similar to our "Historic Reissues" among the thousands of others that are totally different. Someone once referred to the ones possessing less beveling and hand sculpting as the "5 o'clock specials", meaning they're the ones being hurried along back then at almost 5pm on Friday, with some poor soul just counting down the minutes trying to finish up to go home for the weekend. Makes sense (as it happened a lot back then, even with auto manufacturers and such), and the lack of significant numbers kind of goes along with that theory.

 

I often wonder if I were to send gobs of photos to the Custom Shop along with an order for one, would they even really try to recreate the old appeal. I wouldn't mind even paying a little more for something that's REALLY what I want, but it's one of those things that I fear they won't reproduce the features properly even with endless resources. Shoot, they may even tell me where to go for even suggesting that level of personal attention on my "custom" instrument...lol

[lous1952]

Steve-

 

I've seen a '65 with the minimal beveling too.

 

Also, one of the guys on the Les Paul forum had one too.

 

Since '65 was a transitional year for SGs, I believe that Gibson was experimenting in their cost cutting mania.

 

Here's the "blocky" 65 that the guy on the LP forum had.

 

Horrible points, and a factory Bigsby- go figure.

 

[hbomb76]

Steve-

 

I've seen a '65 with the minimal beveling too.

 

Also' date=' one of the guys on the Les Paul forum had one too.

 

Since '65 was a transitional year for SGs, I believe that Gibson was experimenting in their cost cutting mania.

 

Here's the "blocky" 65 that the guy on the LP forum had.

 

Horrible points, and a factory Bigsby- go figure.

 

[img']http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v179/loufed52/SGs/65SGBigsby009.jpg[/img]

 

Yeah Lou, the one I saw was in a (now defunct) store in Athens, and was put to shame unfortunately by my long-gone '97 '61 Reissue (minus the whole Vibrola thing of course) when it came to overall cosmetic appeal. But it's funny, because I've seen some late '65, '66 and even as late as '69 models that have the really nice beveling work. I've seen that '65 you posted....true, it's a monster. I like the factory Bigsby, but my freakin' Epiphone looks better body-wise!!! Of course, I've also seen the small-pickguard/small neck-joint models as late as '66 so there must've been a lot of mixing and matching of new and old going on between late '65 and mid '66...kind of like finding the occasional all-chrome-hardware '64 Standard or oddball mixed-chrome/nickel '65 model. Viva la difference, I suppose. But that's a great example that there WERE some that made it out the gates that were substantially different than the majority.

[dickey]

That '65 looks like a mid-70's that was forged into a '60's--Iv'e never seen a pre-70's SG with such shallow contours. A few years ago, I had a '61 with Maestro, and I traded it in for an identical one with deeper contours;took a loss on it too, but I just had to have those contours. My current SG is a '61 that I bought used in mint cond--Don't know if it's custom shop or not, but it has the very pointy horns with cery deep bevels,or contours; I bought it for that reason alone. I'm glad to see I'm not the only person that's obsessed with SG beveling, and I dont even use my SG onstage;I play country so I use a Tele almost exclusively--gotta check to see if there's a forum about Tele upper bout radii! I bought my '61 'cause I used SG's exclusively in the '60's & 70's, and I figured it would be a nice blast from the past to have an SG around the house. I do use it onstage,occasionally!

[Shaker]

It would be nice to hear from somebody in the Gibson Custom Shop about why they do what do. Is it possible that their "reference" guitar left over at the shop was one of those "5 o'clock specials"? They must have a reason to do what they do.

[hbomb76]

It would be nice to hear from somebody in the Gibson Custom Shop about why they do what do. Is it possible that their "reference" guitar left over at the shop was one of those "5 o'clock specials"? They must have a reason to do what they do.

 

I tried back in 2000 or 2001 (and subsequently in a freak coincidence couldn't log on to ANY Gibson forums for 2 years...lol) to find out that info because overall I was disappointed at these proclaimed "Historically Accurate" reissues, and basically what I was told was something in the ballpark that when "researching" for the Historic reissues they had some vintage examples on-hand that formed the basis of them. Same with the Rossington signature (which I'm not a fan of his by any means, but I've seen the original "Freebird" SG in tons of photos), they claim to have had reference material on that original guitar as well as a '65 in-hand, but seriously, you can look at old pictures of live footage and tell the difference (obviously the different Vibrola too, but the Maestro's an improvement over the sideways contraption of the late-'60 to early '63 models). I somehow don't think they really pulled out the protractors and compasses on them like they've done with other Historics. Scratch that, I KNOW they haven't. Even I (with my limited woodworking skills and whatnot) could go in and demonstrate how to do it better. Would it be THAT big an expense to recalibrate one set of tooling coordinates on the CNC machine program?

 

Maybe they got their hands on some less-elegant examples or 5-o'clock-specials, but I dunno how with so many decent ones out there in the market. Personally I think it has to do with cutting costs and making it easy for the CNC machines. I think it's just easier to say "eh, this is close enough..." and that, along with the halfhearted finishing (don't get me started on "VOS"...lol), just makes for a reissue that overall isn't a bad guitar, but is a terrible "REISSUE". I'd gladly fill up a 2GB thumbdrive full of photos of vintage SG's and send it to them if I knew they'd use that information to really improve on the Historic reissues. I think it'd be an extremely wise move for them to do it, and would draw some of those folks back into buying a new one who might be holding out or who would otherwise only consider the vintage market to get the real-deal.

 

Sometimes Gibson will answer such questions. I was part of the 'movement' back in '99 who got the "SG Les Paul w/Deluxe Maestro" concept cooking. There were a handful of us pushing it (and the '61 RI's tapered horn), and thanks to Mickey Butler and Gypsy Carns at Gibson it became a reality. Are there any advocates there these days? Who knows? Will they read these posts and consider pushing for an upgraded reissue? You got me. A lot really depends on the enthusiasm of us customers (and potential ones) as a collective. Best move is to make waves and hang on!

 

H-Bomb

[MI_Canuck]

this one seems to have some decent bevels (claimed to be an original '65): http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=360083689086

 

 

[hbomb76]

this one seems to have some decent bevels (claimed to be an original '65): http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=360083689086

 

 

 

 

Yeah, that's a pretty darned good example there of what most of them should look like for the most part. Notice the condition of the hardware too, it's one of those examples of a '65 that was outfitted with nickel hardware, which was phased out by mid '65 or so in favor of more durable chrome hardware. For late '64 to early '65 models it's common to find a '64 with chrome or a '65 with nickel in addition to the more-common reversal, and I've even seen a few that (like the '61 RI w/Maestro) had a mix of nickel and chrome parts on the same guitar factory stock.